Key result
A new adhesive ECG monitoring device demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy to conventional monitoring, with 0% signal loss compared to 9.4% in the conventional group (P<0.001).
Why the study?
Conventional ECG monitoring devices lack sufficient diagnostic accuracy and subject patients to a bothersome diagnostic process, prompting evaluation of a new adhesive ECG monitoring device during hospital admission.
Does a new adhesive ECG monitoring device improve signal quality and maintain diagnostic accuracy compared to conventional Holter monitoring in admitted patients?
Observational (n=10)
No
Does a new adhesive ECG monitoring device improve signal quality and maintain diagnostic accuracy compared to conventional Holter monitoring in admitted patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 9.4%
p-value: p=< 0.001
A new adhesive ECG patch provides similar diagnostic accuracy with significantly less signal loss compared to conventional Holter monitors.
May support adhesive ECG monitoring feasibility in admitted patients; leaves open larger validation trials for accuracy and safety.
BACKGROUND: Detection of arrhythmias is crucial for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. However, conventional devices do not provide sufficient diagnostic accuracy while patients should suffer from bothersome diagnostic process. We sought to evaluate diagnostic capability and safety of the new adhesive electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring device in patients who need ECG monitoring during admission. METHODS: We enrolled 10 patients who admitted to Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and required continuous ECG monitoring between October 31, 2019 and December 18, 2019. New adhesive ECG monitoring device and conventional ECG monitoring device were simultaneously applied to the patients and maintained for 48 hours. From each patient, 48 pairs of ECG signal were collected and analyzed by two cardiologists independently. Discrepancy of diagnosis and frequency of noise or signal loss were compared between the two devices. RESULTS: < 0.001) and signal loss was not observed in new adhesive device while there was 9.4% of signal losses in conventional Holter recorder group. The new device was well-tolerated among 48 hours of monitoring period and no adverse event was observed. CONCLUSION: A newer adhesive ECG monitoring device demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy compared to conventional ECG monitoring device.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular diseases requiring continuous ECG monitoring (n=10). New adhesive ECG monitoring device vs. Conventional ECG monitoring device (Holter recorder) was evaluated on Signal loss (p=< 0.001). A new adhesive ECG monitoring device demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy to conventional monitoring, with 0% signal loss compared to 9.4% in the conventional group (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: